Arogo v Board of Management Nyanchwa Preparatory School & another (Appeal E004 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1783 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employee lost his appeal because he couldn't prove his claims for unpaid leave and statutory deductions with evidence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Trial Court erred in failing to properly compute the total award payable despite an uncontroverted claim
- 2.Whether the partial judgment on admission of Kshs. 130,420/- remained unpaid and should have been included in the final computation
- 3.Whether the Trial Magistrate erred in holding that the claim was fully settled by the Kshs. 350,000/- security deposit
- 4.Whether the claims for unpaid leave and remittance of KRA and NSSF deductions were wrongly dismissed
Key legal issues
#Duty of a first appellate court
The appellate court must re-evaluate the trial evidence and reach its own conclusions, giving allowance for not having heard the witnesses.
The court restated the standard duty of a first appellate court, noting it lacked the advantage of the trial court in observing witnesses, and therefore undertook its own re-evaluation of the claims and payments before affirming the trial outcome.
Proof of monetary claims (unpaid leave, statutory deductions)
Such claims fail where not specifically pleaded and strictly proved; the Trial Magistrate correctly dismissed them.
The appellant's claims for unpaid leave under section 28 of the Employment Act and for remittance of KRA and NSSF deductions were dismissed at trial for want of evidence. The appellate court held the dismissal was proper because monetary claims require specific pleading and strict proof.
Legal principles established
#- A first appellate court must re-evaluate and re-examine the evidence afresh and reach its own conclusions while allowing for the disadvantage of not having seen or heard the witnesses.
- Monetary claims must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved before they can be awarded.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed (judgment of the Trial Court upheld in its entirety, per 'Orders accordingly')
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Magistrate's Court at Kisii
- MCELRC (statement of claim dated 29th January 2020)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal from the Magistrate's Court to the Employment and Labour Relations Court (statutory appeal)
Relief refused
#Re-computation of sums payable / setting aside the Trial Court decision
Court found the Magistrate properly considered the claims; payments received settled the amounts and unproved monetary claims could not be awarded
Claim for 63 days unpaid leave under section 28 of the Employment Act
Dismissed for want of evidence; monetary claims must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved
Remittance of KRA PAYE and NSSF deductions
Not specifically pleaded and strictly proved
Costs
No express costs order appears in the judgment; the Appellant had sought costs of the appeal in his pleadings but the disposition ends with 'Orders accordingly' without an award of costs.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The responsibility of a court on appeal is duty bound to revisit and exhaustively re-evaluate and reexamine the evidence presented before the trial court to arrive at its own independent conclusions
In any monetary claim, such must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved.
The Learned Magistrate was correct to decline to award the same in the absence of proof. She cannot be faulted on that score.
Orders accordingly.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment references both Kshs. 134,060/- and Kshs. 136,060/- for the additional payment made on 29th January 2024.
The judgment does not state the names of the parties or Respondents in full, nor an express costs order in the disposition.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Arogo v Board of Management Nyanchwa Preparatory School & another (Appeal E004 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1783 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Kisii ELRCA E004 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1783/eng@2025-06-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.